| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'd /not/ really wish to encourage version bump requests "overnight". |
| 3 |
> That's jumping the gun, and indeed, could encourage "first post" like |
| 4 |
> behavior. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> What I'd do with such bugs is thank the user, but say next time, please |
| 7 |
> give me a few days, at least a week (or whatever a dev feels comfortable |
| 8 |
> with for that package, again, it'll vary) -- if it's /just/ a bump |
| 9 |
> request. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That is precisely what was being discussed on the private list which |
| 12 |
prompted me to finish off this post and publish it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
One point I was trying to make (as Mike and myself suggested on the |
| 15 |
private list) is that if you *do* receive a bump request too soon after |
| 16 |
release, then you ask the user nicely to wait 1 week (or whatever) after |
| 17 |
release in the future before filing bump requests. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You should *also* leave the bug open until the ebuild is in portage, |
| 20 |
then mark the bug as FIXED in the normal way, *and* you thank them by |
| 21 |
name in the commit message. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
By showing them some basic respect for the fact they were trying to |
| 24 |
contribute, hopefully they will understand your position better and take |
| 25 |
up your advice. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You can argue that that *may* encourage "overnight" bump requests (which |
| 28 |
certainly isn't the intention), but in practice I think that won't |
| 29 |
happen too much if you treat the contributor in the proper manner. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Daniel |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives